FJR Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 Profit Sharing plan had 11 eligible participants at begining of Plan Year. At 12/31, the following occurred. 2 eligible HCE's 2 eligible NHCE's 7 Terminated NHCE's 1 Terminated HCE Question is regarding vesting. Should the terminated particpants be given 100% vesting? Thanks.
JanetM Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 This is facts and circumstances issue. But IRS has ruled in some cases and the courts have ruled in some cases. Weil v. Terson was deemed partial termination and only affected 27%. If I were you I would vest all 100%. JanetM CPA, MBA
Earl Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 not if they quit and there is a plan/need to replace them. CBW
MGB Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 Even if they quit, there is still a facts and circumstances issue here. If I cut your salary in half and you quit, the IRS would not view that any different than if I laid you off.
david rigby Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 You can get some background on facts and circumstances, and other issues related to "partial termination" from the several prior discussion threads on this topic. Search I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Kirk Maldonado Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 You could always play it safe and apply for an IRS determination letter. Kirk Maldonado
mbozek Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 Employees who terminate voluntarily, die or retire are not included in determining whether there has been a partial termination. Also employees terminated involuntarily because of economic necessity, e.g., downturn in business are not included. People who are given the choice between taking a salary cut or having their jobs outsourced if they refuse are still making a voluntary choice to quit. mjb
MGB Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 mbozek, I have a hard time digesting your statement about layoffs due to downturns. (When else would you lay people off?) Do you have any cite for that interpretation?
david rigby Posted May 25, 2004 Posted May 25, 2004 I agree with MGB's assessment. And "retirees" may also be considered involuntary separation of employment. So, we are back to facts and circumstances. BTW, the IRS presumes all affected employees are involuntarily terminated until proven otherwise. Burden of proof is on the employer. Probably the only easy ones are deaths. Thus, recommendation from JanetM above may be the result. Consider the cost of vesting vs. the cost of proving your case. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now